I don’t know where else to put this. I’m sorry if it’s in the wrong place and will move it if it’s not appropriate here.

Every time I read anything from so-called solarpunks, it reads like slightly left of centre ravings of doomsday preppers. They seem to love many of the same fascist talking points. For example, individualism self-sufficiency , which sounds a lot like the frontier cowboy fantasies of right-wing nutters. They promote what essentially is subsistence farming, which is a terrible way to live. There’s a reason this kind of shit leads to famine in developing countries. An almost enthusiastic fantasy surrounding primitism and the loss of technology. There are so many issues, I could go on. Unless I’m missing something (possible) I don’t see much appealing about solarpunk because it seems to have a delusional nostalgia for the “good old days”, much in the way conservativism does.

Is it really as crackpot as it sounds? If not, what am I missing?

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        311 months ago

        Not at all. It was as much a challenge as a question. I suspect some push back, I was just hoping I’d learn something useful. What I’m picking up is that it’s not a fully formed set of ideals agreed upon by everyone. Which I suppose I shouldn’t expect among leftists anyway lol. Thanks for the response.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      Wingnut paranoia

      Your ideas don’t have a monopoly on a more sustainable future

      So you’re saying they’re my ideas, and that their wing nut paranoid ideas. That’s an insult and an attribution

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        That wasn’t my intention and the quote is out of context (you left out “sounds like”) but if you want to be insulted, that’s your perogative .

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          I think a reasonable interpretation of your previous comment, was that it was intended to be insulting, and combative. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I’m willing to entertain that… But that’s my reading

          Communication is not what is intended, it is what is perceived.